Interdisciplinary Critical and Design Thinking*

Interdisciplinary Critical and Design Thinking*

VERONIKA SULIGOJ1, ROMAN ZAVBI2 and STANISLAV AVSEC1

1University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploscad 16, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.

E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] of Ljubljana, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Askerceva c. 6, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.

E-mail: [email protected]

Despite the importance of design thinking, there has been little research on interdisciplinary augmentation and the clear

articulation of cognitive domain effects is still missing. The present study explores students’ perceptions of and experiences

in critical thinking and students’ creative design ability in different study disciplines and explores correlations between

students’ attitudes and beliefs towards critical thinking and their design thinking ability. A sample of 268 students aged 21–

23 years was collected. The students’ majors include preservice technology and engineering teachers’ education, chemical

engineering, electrical and computer engineering, andmechanical engineering. For all subjects, critical thinking and design

thinking are considered important interdisciplinary capabilities. Our findings suggest that the students’ critical thinking

might markedly affect their creative design ability. The ways in which each discipline is taught can be transferred across

different knowledge and skill domains. We found that the most creative designers are mechanical engineering students,

especially in terms of the originality and usefulness of design, while their divergent thinking abilitymight be improvedwith

methods used in technology and engineering teacher education. Electrical and computer engineering students can benefit

when interdisciplinary methods for improving understanding are applied as evidenced by the chemical and mechanical

engineering curriculum. We also suggest that female students, who dominate in divergent thinking and critical thinking,

might improve team learning and decision-making where transferable skills can be enhanced along with pedagogical

content knowledge. These findings have implications for interdisciplinary innovation learning and creative design

assessment.

Keywords: critical thinking, design thinking, interdisciplinarity, creative design ability, correlation analysis

1. Introduction

We are surrounded by many complex and rapidlychanging issues that cannot be solved with techno-

logical knowledge alone. Society therefore needs

very competent problem solvers to solve problems

and improve our living environment [1]. Addition-

ally, market competition dictates new needs and

requires an improved ability to survive in a highly

technological knowledge-based society. Innovative-

ness has been found to be a key competence for thesustainability and success of individuals and orga-

nisations [2]. Educators and engineers play impor-

tant roles in encouraging innovation by companies

and research-and-development institutions and in

education [3]. Education is crucial to promoting the

creative and innovative thinking of engineering

students, but many engineering students do not

display abilities in creative problem solving. Engi-neering curricula therefore need to foster problem-

solving abilities from an interdisciplinary perspec-

tive, leading to innovation within design as a central

activity of engineering [3]. Educators need to focus

on teaching students how to critically analyse,

conceptualize, and synthesize knowledge to cope

with real-world problems and to identify competi-

tive opportunities [4].Traditional disciplinary academic teaching is

based on a set of activities previously prepared by

instructors and based on disciplinary content

knowledge. Teachers usually orally transmit knowl-edge and students must acquire the knowledge.

Students are therefore mostly passive listeners.

Teachers have to encourage cooperative and colla-

borative work among students to improve learning,

knowledge creation, and decision making [5].

Uziak, Komula, and Becker [6] presented the ben-

efits of active learning methods used by different

educators (e.g., John Dewey) for over 100 years.Uziak et. al. [6] have reported an improvement in

students’ attitude towards active methods of learn-

ing, more precisely towards problem-based learn-

ing. Students have commented that problem-based

learning provides a good experience for analytical

and logical thinking in problem solving, enriches

their ability to learn, and increases their potential to

think critically [6]. However, in a highly technolo-gically developed world, important skills are team-

work, communication, problem solving, and critical

thinking [7]. People are confronted with complex

problems and they have to make rational decisions

on the basis of evaluation and critical thinking

rather than to passively accept solutions provided

by others [8]. Dealing with difficult situations can

help students learn design thinking [9].Creativity and innovativeness have been found to

* Accepted 27 September 2019.84

International Journal of Engineering Education Vol. 36, No. 1(A), pp. 84–95, 2020 0949-149X/91 $3.00+0.00Printed in Great Britain # 2020 TEMPUS Publications.

be a key competence for the sustainability and

success of individuals and organisations [2]. Nowa-

days, the numbers and complexities of problems

and opportunities are growing rapidly. We there-

fore need problem solvers and problem seekers with

expertise to find and solve problems and thusimprove and sustain our social, economic, and

physical environments.

Critical thinking, as a higher-order thinking pro-

cess, is needed for individuals to become more

acceptable, flexible, and able to cope with rapidly

evolving information and thus make intelligent and

rational decisions in dealing with personal, social,

and scientific-technological problems; i.e., peopleneed to be able to use various multidimensional

higher-order thinking skills [10]. Critical thinking is

taught differently in different disciplines of study.

Critical thinking is generally affected by the context

and discipline but it is also a transferable skill. The

developed disposition of critical thinking might

allow the transfer of knowledge, skills, and attitudes

between different study disciplines. There is a needto optimize the learning of critical thinking skills in

all disciplines as demonstrated in [11].We should be

able to use various multidimensional higher-order

thinking skills in making intelligent and rational

decisions when solving personal, social, and scien-

tific-technological problems [12].

Design thinking has long been rooted in archi-

tecture and engineering but has now spread to otherdisciplines where it plays an important role. Design

thinking might be a new trend and tool for inter-

disciplinary augmentation because it is closely

related to innovation learning [13] and its applica-

tive value is frequently discussed in both design and

management circles. A course on design thinking

might enhance interdisciplinary skills where

enrolled students fromdifferentmajors e.g., science,technology, engineering, business, and art, explore

content and solve problems by integrating different

learning approaches and methods. By allowing

design activity, gaps in the students’ knowledge,

skills, and attitude towards design can be bridged

and the students’ innovative ability improved [13].

Technology and engineering teacher education:

Instructors are important to the implementationof the design thinking process in the classroom.

The instructor’s knowledge dictates and affects

students’ learning [3]. Nowadays, teachers are

increasingly challenged to be creative in novel

practice; therefore, teacher education, based on

design thinking, is important [14]. Technology and

engineering teachers nowadays have to avoid the

simple transfer of knowledge of materials, masteryof special technical skills and techniques, and cor-

rect use of instruments. The instructor gains more

confidence in teaching and transferring knowledge

by developing subject knowledge and pedagogical

content knowledge (PCK). PCK refers to the trans-

formation of different knowledge domains into a

new and unique domain. PCK consists of knowl-

edge of the students’ concepts of technology and

knowledge of their pre-and misconceptions relatedto technology, knowledge of the nature and purpose

of technology education, and knowledge of

approaches and teaching strategies for technology

education [3].

Mechanical engineering education: Design think-

ing is seen as useful in uncovering the creative

potential of students [2, 15]. Design is the central

activity of engineering, and engineers need to beable to apply engineering design to solve problems

[16]. Engineering is a problem-solving process and is

associated with searching for technological solu-

tions to practical problems and satisfying customer

needs. Engineering focuses on analysis, synthesis,

and convergent and divergent thinking [2].Mechan-

ical engineering students are surrounded with active

forms of learning throughout their studies andcombine practice and theory, laboratory work and

coursework, and simulations and experimentation.

They place much emphasis on testing the mechan-

ical properties of materials and construction [17],

where the importance of critical thinking and design

thinking is seen.

Electrical and computer engineering education:

The work of students focuses on algorithms,abstract thinking, and visualization of the problem

to find the solution to the problem. The problem-

solving strategy is an essential principle of computer

science [18] while electrical engineering students

develop procedural schematic knowledge and

visualisation skills while working with wiring dia-

grams, schematics, and circuit drawings. There are

several skills that every embedded engineer musthave, e.g., vertical in-depth knowledge, be an all-

rounder, networking, staying attunedwith the latest

technologies, project management skills, trouble-

shooting skills, and creativity [18].

Chemical engineering education: Chemical engi-

neers are exposed tometacognitive prompts relating

to macroscopic, microscopic, representative (sym-

bolic), and descriptive processes and graphing skills[19]. The dominant activity of chemical engineers is

investigation and empirical inquiry where apply

chemistry, biology, physics and math to solve pro-

blems. Creative thinking, including divergent and

convergent thinking, is essential in constructing

explanations and developing solutions. Education

is focused on active learning, especially inquiry-

based learning, and many laboratory activities [20].The global society faces enormous social, politi-

cal, economic, and environmental challenges, all of

which require creative responses. The problems that

Interdisciplinary Critical and Design Thinking 85

we face and the opportunities that arise arguably

require all our creative thinking. It is not clear if

current education charged with the transfer of

knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values can cope

with large-scale problems and opportunities, espe-

cially where study disciplines seem unprepared foran evolutionary leap forward in a person’s capacity

to think about the big picture. Moreover, there is

evidence that deepening expertise can result in

dogmatism, preventing the enhancement and effec-

tive use of a person’s intelligence and gifts. Ambrose

[21] argued that combining insights from diverse

disciplines can enhance creative intelligence and

combat dogmatism and thus accelerate the evolu-tion of our abilities for conceptualisation with

parallel improvement of our metacognition.

We address the following research questions

against the background described above.

� What are the perceptions of and critical thinking

experiences of students with different academic

majors?

� What are the differences in creative design abilityacross study disciplines?

� What is a predictive value of students’ critical

thinking as part of their creative design ability?

The present study explores how the critical think-

ing of students in different disciplines synergizes

with their creative design ability and how specifics

of the discipline create an augmentation needed for

design innovation.

2. Design Thinking as a Tool for PromotingCreative Design and Critical Thinking

Design thinking is generally defined as an analytic

and creative process that engages a person inopportunities to experiment, create, and prototype

models, gather feedback, and redesign [22, p. 330].

The design thinker can be described with numerous

characteristics, such as human – and environment-

centred concerns, the ability to visualize, a predis-

position towardmultifunctionality, systemic vision,

affinity for teamwork, and the tendency to avoid the

necessity of choice. Additionally, a good designershould be able to use different problem-solving

strategies and choose the one that best meets the

requirements of the situation [22]. A visual repre-

sentation in design is viewed as a transaction

between conceptual knowledge and visual knowl-

edge [23]. Design offers opportunities for creativity

because of the emergence of ill-defined problems,

for which there is a variety of solutions and path-ways to the solutions, and avoids pre-specified

correct solutions [15]. Design thinking is a user-

centric approach to problem solving and covers

understanding (gathering problem-related informa-

tion), observation (better understanding the pro-

blem), the point of view (analysing the preceding

observations), visualization (brainstorming outline

solutions to identify challenges), prototyping (creat-

ing the solution), and testing and reiterating (getting

feedback on prototypes and modifying the proto-types as required) [2].

There are several definitions of creativity in the

literature. Charyton et al. [24] defined creativity as

the generation of new ideas, or new ways of looking

at existing problems and seeing new opportunities.

Cropley [2], in contrast, defined creativity as the

creation of technical solutions for given problems.

Creativity plays an important role in problem-solving activities through the comparison, evalua-

tion and assessment, choosing, combining, and use

of knowledge and skills in relation to usability to

reach a practical solution [5]. Guilford [2] described

creativity as problem solving and defined four

stages: (1) recognition that a problem exists, (2)

generation of a variety of relevant ideas, (3) evalua-

tion of the various possibilities produced, and (4)drawing of appropriate conclusions that lead to the

solution of the problem. From these phases, it is

evident that creativity requires both divergent and

convergent thinking. Esjeholm reported four cri-

teria for identifying creativity in the domain of

design [25].

� Conceptual creativity (the concept or idea): Has

the designer proposed a concept that is original,

novel, feasible, and useful and will function?

� Aesthetic creativity: Has the designer made pro-

posals about those features of the product thatwill appeal to the senses; e.g., sight, hearing,

touch, taste, and smell?

� Technical creativity: Has the designer proposed

how the product will work and the nature of the

components and materials required?

� Constructional creativity: Has the designer pro-

posed how the product will be constructed and

the tools and the processes needed?

Atkinson [26] argued that creativity is an intrinsic

human trait and is a skill that can be taught andnurtured through working with problem solving

strategies. Engineering design has an unleashed

potential of stimulating students’ higher-order

thinking, where critical thinking plays a central

role in learning [27]. Critical thinking is described

as ametacognitive process comprising different sub-

skills, such as analysis, evaluation, and inference

[10]. Critical thinking is also a higher-order thinkingskill, and a higher-order thinking process is not

possible if one does not have enough knowledge

[28]. Critical thinking is also an important skill in

social and interpersonal contexts where good deci-

sion-making and problem-solving skills are needed

Veronika Suligoj et al.86

[2]. Halpern [28, p. 6] described critical thinking as

the ‘‘use of those cognitive skills or strategies that

increase the probability of a desirable outcome. It is

used to describe thinking that is purposeful, rea-

soned, and goal directed – the kind of thinking

involved in solving problems, formulating infer-ences, calculating likelihoods, and making deci-

sions, when the thinker is using skills that are

thoughtful and effective for the particular context

and type of thinking task.’’ Critical thinking is often

referred to as a higher-order cognitive skill that

involves analysis, synthesis, interpretation, evalua-

tion, and noticing assumptions. However, the abil-

ity to think critically about specific informationdepends on recalling and understanding [28]. The

most appropriate methods of developing critical

thinking skills are collaborative methods with

some teacher intervention. The role of the teacher

is predominantly to motivate and encourage stu-

dents to critically think during teamwork. Students

have higher levels of trust in critical thinking when

supported by teachers [27]. Furthermore, learningactivities used to promote critical thinking must be

designed in such a way as to facilitate transfer

learning, so students are better prepared for

unknown future challenges [28]. Halpern [28] pre-

sented amodel for teaching critical thinking that has

four parts: (a) a dispositional component that

comprises modelling critical thinking and actively

encouraging thoughtful responding; (b) instructionin and practice with critical thinking skills; (c)

structure-training activities designed to facilitate

transfer across contexts; and (d) a metacognitive

component, which includes having students discuss

the process of thinking.

Design thinking is a problem-solving approach

that has been taught in informal and formal educa-

tion settings across various disciplines globally [29].Design thinking requires curiosity, imagination,

and creativity to generate, explore, and develop

possible solutions [29], and it might also depend

on the skill level of critical thinking [29]. Further-

more, critical thinking and creative thinking are

complementary processes [28]. As a creative

approach, design thinking has become an evolving

field in higher education, connecting students ofvarious disciplines to solve complex problems as a

team [13]. Higher-education institutions incorpo-

rate design thinking in the undergraduate curricu-

lum, thereby exposing non-design students to

design thinking skills [3, 13, 14].

3. Methodology

3.1 Sample

The sample in this study comprised 268 under-

graduate students from Slovenia (University ofLjubljana) and Poland (CracowUniversity of Tech-

nology) in different higher-education disciplines, as

listed in Table 1. The participants were aged

between 20 and 23 years and comprised 145 females

(54.1%) and 123 males (45.9 %).

3.2 Instrumentation

A modified test for creative design assessment

(CEDA) was adopted to assess the creative design

ability of students [24]. Participants were asked to

resolve by sketching three design problems that

incorporate one or more three-dimensional objects.

Additionally, participants had to provide descrip-

tions and list materials as well as identify problems

that the design solves and list the potential users.Participants were to generate up to two designs per

problem. The total time for the assessment was 30

minutes for the three problems or about 10 minutes

per problem. Creativity includes problem solving

(i.e., finding a solution to a specific problem) and

problem finding (i.e., identifying other potential

problems) and CEDA is a tool that assesses both

dimensions. Problem finding was assessed in termsof identifying other uses for the design. Problem

solving was assessed in terms of deriving a novel

design to solve the problem posed. CEDA assesses

both convergent thinking (i.e., generating one cor-

rect answer) and divergent thinking (i.e., generating

multiple responses or answers). Convergent think-

ing was assessed in terms of solving the problem

posed. Divergent thinking was assessed in terms ofgenerating multiple solutions. Constraint satisfac-

tion was also assessed, where students used shapes

and materials within the parameters of the design.

Additionally, CEDA assesses fluency (i.e., the

number of ideas), flexibility (i.e., categories of

ideas, types of ideas, and grouping of ideas), origin-

ality (i.e., new ideas and novelty), and usefulness

(i.e., the practicality of a design based on the


Table 1. The number and percentage of students among different higher education disciplines

Study discipline Number [N] Percentage [%]

Technology and engineering teacher education 61 22.76

Chemical engineering 61 22.76

Electrical and computer engineering 60 22.39

Mechanical engineering 86 32.09

reliability, number of purposes, and number of

applications both present and new) [24].

Participants were scored from 0 to 10 for each

design problem according to originality and from 0

to 4 for each design problem according to usefulness

[24]. The fluency and flexibility of design conceptswere assessed for a number of items.

Cronbach’s alpha for the sample in this study

indicates that a test CEDA has moderate reliability

of 0.86.

The 27-item Critical Thinking Toolkit (CriTT)

was used to survey student attitudes and beliefs

about critical thinking [27]. CriTT has the following

factors.

� Confidence in critical thinking –17 items measure

the participant confidence in critical thinking.

� Valuing critical thinking – Six items measure the

extent to which students recognise the impor-

tance of critical thinking.� Misconceptions – Four items measure the avoid-

ance of critical thinking or misconceptions of

critical thinking.

A 10-point Likert scale was used for assessment,

with scores ranging from 10 for strong agreement to

1 for strong disagreement.Internal consistency was analysed using Cronba-

ch’s alpha. The items in Confidence in critical think-

ing demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach’s � of

0.90). The items in Valuing critical thinking and

Misconceptions demonstrated moderate reliability

(Cronbach’s � of 0.81 and 0.76 respectively).

3.3 Data Collection and Analysis

The study was performed for the academic year

2018/2019. Before completing the questionnaire andtest, students were briefed about the study and

ethical considerations. The CEDA was adminis-

tered when the critical thinking questionnaire had

been completed. There were no time limits imposed

on participants completing the critical thinking

questionnaire, while the CEDA test was limited to

30 minutes.

The data were analysed using IBM SPSS (v.22)

software. Cronbach’ alpha coefficient was used tosupport the reliability of tests. Additionally, basic

tools of descriptive statistics were used to present

the student basic information, and the mean scores

of dependent variables, analyses of variance, and

multiple regression analysis were adopted to find

and confirm significant relationships between

groups.

4. Results

4.1 Students’ Attitudes and Beliefs Towards

Critical Thinking

The critical-thinking questionnaire measured the

students’ beliefs and attitudes about critical think-

ing on three subscales: Confidence in critical think-ing, Valuing critical thinking, and Misconceptions.

The scale of Misconceptions is reversed, which

means that lower scores indicate a better under-

standing of misconceptions.

Fig. 1 shows differences across gender. Students

perceived critical thinking as beneficial for good

performance in higher education. Female students

scored higher (as expressed by the mean M andstandard deviation SD) than males in Confidence in

critical thinking and Valuing critical thinking (Mf =

7.30,SDf, = 1.09,Mm= 6.88,SDm=1.05;Mf=7.49,

SDf, = 1.41, Mm = 6.8, SDm = 1.40 respectively).

Male students had amore developed understanding

of misconceptions than female students (Mf = 6.25,

SDf, = 1.84,Mm=6.03,SDm=1.68). The test for the

homogeneity of variance was not significant (p >0.05). There were significant differences for the

subscales of Confidence in critical thinking (F =

10.35; df= 1; p= 0.001) andValuing critical thinking


Fig. 1. Students’ attitudes and beliefs about critical thinking across sex with mid-point 5.5.

(F = 15.74; df = 1; p = 0.000) with a moderate effect

size (�2 = 0.04 and 0.06; respectively).

Students’ attitudes and beliefs towards critical

thinking might differ between study disciplines, asshown in Fig. 2. The test for homogeneity of

variance was not significant (p > 0.05) for all three

subscales of critical thinking. There were significant

differences across study disciplines for all three

subscales (p<0.05) ofConfidence in critical thinking,

Valuing critical thinking, and Misconceptions with

moderate effect sizes (�2 = 0.12, 0.14, and 0.08

respectively). In the case of Confidence in critical

thinking, a Scheffe post-hoc test revealed significant

differences between preservice technology and engi-

neering teachers and electrical and computer science

engineering students (p = 0.00), preservice technol-

ogy and engineering teachers and mechanical engi-

neering students (p = 0.00), chemical engineering

students and electrical and computer science engi-

neering students (p = 0.00), and chemical engineer-ing students and mechanical engineering students

(p = 0.00). Preservice technology and engineering

teachers scored highest (M = 7.56, SD = 0.86) and

were followed by chemical engineering students

(M = 7.49, SD = 1.09), Mechanical engineering

students (M = 6.77, SD = 1.06), and electrical and

computer science engineering students (M = 6.75,

SD = 1.06).Valuing critical thinking was most developed in

preservice technology and engineering teachers

(M = 7.99, SD = 1.07), followed by chemical

engineering students (M=7.32SD=1.40),mechan-

ical engineering students (M= 7.07, SD= 1.20), and

electrical and computer science engineering stu-

dents (M = 6.39, SD = 1.69). A Scheffe post-hoc

test revealed significant differences between preser-vice technology and engineering teachers and elec-

trical and computer science engineering students

(p = 0.00), chemical engineering students and elec-

trical and computer science engineering students

(p = 0.003), mechanical engineering students and


dents (p = 0.03), and preservice technology and

engineering teachers and mechanical engineeringstudents (p = 0.001). On the subscale ofMisconcep-

tions, significant differences were found between

chemical engineering students and electrical and

computer science engineering students (p = 0.002)

and between mechanical engineering students and


dents (p = 0.001). The understanding of misconcep-

tions was most developed for chemical engineeringstudents (M = 5.70, SD = 2.05), followed by

mechanical engineering students (M = 5.75, SD =

1.54), preservice technology and engineering tea-

chers (M = 6.45, SD = 1.74), and electrical and


SD = 1.51).

4.2 Creative Design Ability of Students

In general, female students (M = 98.28, SD= 22.19)

scored higher than male students (M = 93.81, SD =

28.37) but there were no statistically significant

differences in the total score. The highest score

was 161.00 points and the lowest score was 20.00

points. The highest score was achieved by a female

student. A between-participant test revealed signifi-

cant differences in all four categories of creativedesign ability: Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and

Usefulness. The students’ average scores across

subscales are given in Table 2.

In the case of the Fluency subscale, there was a

significant difference between female and male

students (t = 4.15; p = 0.00) with a moderate effect

size �2 = 0.06. Female students (M = 34.47, SD =

10.10) scored higher thanmale students (M= 29.10,SD = 11.05). Female students (M = 27.49, SD =

7.46) also achieved better results thanmale students

(M = 24.34, SD = 8.23) on the Flexibility subscale.

There were statistically significant differences


Fig. 2. Students’ attitudes and beliefs about critical thinking across the study disciplines with mid-point 5.5.

between female and male students (t = 3.28; p =

0.001) with a moderate effect size �2 = 0.04. In the

case of the Originality subscale, there was a signifi-

cant difference between female and male students(t= –3.35; p= 0.001) with amoderate effect size �2 =0.04. Female students (M=20.66,SD=6.32) scored

lower thanmale students (M= 23.57, SD= 7.87). In

the case of the Usefulness subscale, there was a

significant difference between female and male

students (t = –2.69; p = 0.01) with a weak effect

size �2 = 0.03. Female students (M = 15.66, SD =

2.51) scored lower than male students (M = 16.19,SD = 4.36).

Analysis of covariance revealed that male stu-

dents, who had lower scores for self-confidence in

critical thinking, achieved higher scores on the

originality subscale (F = 4.19, p = 0.04, �2 = 0.02).

Furthermore, female students who valued critical

thinking more, achieved better results for Fluency

(F = 4.19, p = 0.04, �2 = 0.02) while male studentsperformed better on the Usefulness (F = 7.47, p =

0.007, �2 = 0.03) subscale.

Table 3 shows that in general, the highest number

of points were scored on average by mechanical

engineering students (M = 105.50, SD = 23.92),

followed by preservice technology an engineering

teachers (M = 96.44, SD = 17.28), chemical engi-

neering students (M = 92.85, SD = 22.86), andelectrical and computer science engineering stu-

dents (M = 86.17, SD = 31.46).

A comparison of different study disciplines

reveals that there were statistically significant differ-

ences in three categories of creative design ability:

Fluency, Originality, and Usefulness. In the case of

the Fluency subgroup, a Scheffe post-hoc test found

differences between preservice technology and engi-neering teachers and electrical and computer science

engineering students (p = 0.02). The preservice

technology and engineering teachers (M = 34.19,

SD = 10.01) scored higher than the electrical and


SD = 12.17), mechanical engineering students (M =32.67, SD = 26.94), and chemical engineering stu-

dents (M = 32.92, SD = 10.69). A Games–Howell

post hoc test revealed differences on the Originality

subscale between preservice technology and engi-

neering teachers and electrical and computer science

engineers (p = 0.02), preservice technology and

engineering teachers and mechanical engineering

students (p = 0.00), chemical engineering studentsandmechanical engineering students (p= 0.00), and

mechanical engineering students and electrical and

computer science engineering students (p = 0.00).

Mechanical engineering students scored highest

(M = 26.79, SD = 6.32) and were followed by


dents (M= 20.77, SD= 6.94), preservice technology

and engineering teachers (M = 20.28, SD = 2.89),and chemical engineering students (M=18.15,SD=

5.61). In the case of the Usefulness subscale, there

were statistically significant differences between

mechanical engineering students and preservice

technology and engineering teachers (p = 0.00),

mechanical engineering students and chemical engi-

neering students (p = 0.00), mechanical engineering

students and electrical and computer science engi-neering students (p = 0.00), and preservice technol-

ogy and engineering teachers and electrical and

computer science engineering students (p = 0.02).

Mechanical engineering students scored highest

(M = 19.09, SD = 2.72) and were followed by

preservice technology and engineering teachers

(M = 15.42, SD = 1.47), chemical engineering

students (M = 15.24, SD = 2.59), and electricaland computer science engineering students (M =

13.77, SD = 4.09). Additionally, analysis of covar-


Table 2. Students’ average score on CEDA across sex.

SexFluency Flexibility Originality Usefulness

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Females 34.47 10.10 27.49 7.46 20.66 6.32 15.66 2.51

Males 29.09 11.05 24.34 8.23 23.57 7.87 16.81 4.36

Table 3. Students’ average score on CEDA across study disciplines

Study disciplineFluency Flexibility Originality Usefulness

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Technology and engineering teacher education 34.19 10.01 26.54 6.44 20.28 2.89 15.42 1.47

Chemical engineering 32.92 10.69 26.54 8.22 18.15 5.61 15.24 2.59

Electrical and computer engineering 27.88 12.17 23.75 9.65 20.77 6.94 13.77 4.09

Mechanical engineering 32.67 9.92 26.94 7.27 26.79 8.03 19.09 2.72

iance revealed that mechanical engineering stu-

dents, who had a better developed understanding

of misconceptions, scored higher on the creativity

subscale ofUsefulness (F= 4.07, p= 0.04, �2 = 0.02).

4.3 Correlations Between Students’ attitudes and

Beliefs Towards Critical Thinking and Students’

Creative Design Ability

Correlations between students’ attitudes and beliefs

towards critical thinking and students’ creative

design ability were verified through multiple regres-

sion. A multiple regression analysis was carried out

with the subscales of students’ attitudes and beliefs

towards critical thinking as independent variablesand creative design ability subscales as dependent

variables. We assumed a linear relation between

independent (predictor) and dependent (criterion)

variables, meaning that we would expect that

increases in one variable are related to increases

or decreases in another variable. Only regression

coefficients (�–weights) with a significance of p <

0.05 were considered. A summary of multipleregression analyses is presented in Fig. 3.

Two categories of critical thinking are statisti-

cally significant in predicting Fluency; i.e., Valuing

critical thinking (� = 0.19; t = 2.77; p = 0.06) and

Misconceptions (� = –0.13; t = –2.10; p = 0.04).

Students who better understood misconceptions

and better appreciated the importance of critical

thinking scored higher on the Fluency subscale.Furthermore, students who were aware of the

importance of critical thinking scored higher on

Flexibility (� = 0.17; t = 2.49; p = 0.02). Confidence

in critical thinking predictsOriginality (�=–0.16; t=–2.40; p = 0.02). Students who were more confident

in their critical thinking scored lower onOriginality.

The two categories of students’ attitudes and beliefs

towards critical thinking predicted Usefulness; i.e.,

Valuing critical thinking (� = 0.15; t= 2.22; p= 0.03)andMisconceptions (� = –0.23; t = –3.72; p = 0.00).

Students who valued the importance of critical

thinking and who better understood errors and

misconceptions in particular contexts scored

higher on the Usefulness subscale.

5. Discussion

The present study yielded interesting findings. In

general, we obtained evidence that the inclusion of

methods, forms, strategies, and cognitive

approaches from different disciplines in which

there is design activity can provide added value to

engineering design in terms of copingwith problems

and opportunities that we face in real-world set-

tings.The Critical Thinking Toolkit measures students’

attitudes and beliefs about critical thinking and was

developed for psychology undergraduate students.

Stupple et al. [27] proposed exploring the validity of

using the instrument in other disciplines. The

sample used in the present paper covers different

higher-education study disciplines (preservice tech-

nology and engineering teachers, chemical engineer-ing students, electrical and computer science

engineering students, and mechanical engineering

students,) in which design thinking is a core activity


Fig. 3. Students’ attitude and beliefs towards critical thinking regressed on creative design ability.Path coefficients are statistically significant at *p < 0.05, **p < 0.001.

and critical thinking is an important higher-order

thinking skill. This demonstrated the reliability of

the instrument in other disciplines.

In general, the undergraduate students in the

present study had an above-average perceived atti-

tude towards the importance and valuing of criticalthinking while their understanding of errors and

misconceptions in learning still needed improve-

ment. Furthermore, the students perceived critical

thinking as an important skill needed for learning

and acquiring competencies. We confirm that cri-

tical thinking plays a central role in learning and

that it is of utmost importance of higher education.

Developing critical thinkers can enhance innova-tion learning at future employment [27]. We found

differences among students in terms of their atti-

tudes and beliefs towards critical thinking that may

be due to the different ways that they were taught.

The results show that there were statistically sig-

nificant differences between female students and

male students on two subscales of critical thinking:

Confidence in critical thinking and Valuing critical

thinking. It turned out that the female students have

developed greater confidence in critical thinking

and awareness of the importance of critical think-

ing. In the case of the third factor Misconceptions,

which measures the understanding of misconcep-

tions related to conceptual learning, students

majoring in different subjects had different under-

standings ofmisconceptions. These differences werealso revealed in a previous study [3]. We further

investigated differences in students’ attitudes and

beliefs among different study disciplines. We found

differences among higher-education study disci-

plines for all three subscales of critical thinking.

All study disciplines have critical thinking as an

important skill but in different ways. Our results

reveal that the preservice technology and engineer-ing teachers had themost confidence in their critical

thinking andwere followed by chemical engineering

students,mechanical engineering students, and elec-

trical and computer science engineering students.

Cargas et al. [11] agreed that teachers appeared to be

more confident in their mastery of critical thinking

skills. Preservice technology and engineering tea-

chers also perceived critical thinking as one of themost important skills that an individual must have.

The teachers were followed by chemical engineering

students,mechanical engineering students, and elec-

trical and computer science students. Chemical

engineering students better understood misconcep-

tions in learning and were followed by mechanical

engineering students, preservice technology and

engineering teachers, and electrical and computerscience engineering students. Chemical engineering

students spend much time experimenting and doing

other laboratory work and a minimal error or

wrong understanding can lead to disaster. To

avoid these consequences, the chemical engineering

curriculum pays much attention to the understand-

ing of misconceptions. The situation is similar for

mechanical engineering, where constructions and

systemsmust be reliable and durable and errors andmisconceptions are an important part of the curri-

culum.

Instructors play an important role in developing

critical thinking because they can adapt the learning

by encouraging more critical thinking activities.

Problem-based learning environment using authen-

tic problems, including critical dialogue and discus-

sion is recommended in the course and mentoring[11]. Online discussions have been suggested as an

effective method of improving analytical and pro-

blem-solving-skills and critical thinking [30]. Devel-

oped critical thinking also contributes to higher

academic achievements [27].

In the present study, female students scored

higher in the creative design ability test than male

students. We cannot conclude that female studentsare better than male students because previous

studies have found that females are better in diver-

gent thinking thanmales and vice versa [31]. Female

students obtained statistically better results in Flex-

ibility and Fluency while male students scored

higher for Originality and Usefulness. The results

show that female students are better at divergent

thinking, suggesting that female students performbetter in the first phase of the design thinking

process, which is to empathize. Female students

are more flexible in meeting the needs of users and

realizing what is necessary for customers. Further-

more, there were statistically significant differences

among study disciplines in the three subcategories

of creative design ability: Fluency, Originality, and

Usefulness. On the Fluency subscale, a higher scorewas obtained by preservice technology and engi-

neering teachers, while mechanical engineering stu-

dents performed best onOriginality andUsefulness.

Preservice technology and engineering teachers per-

haps feel more confident posing different ideas from

different knowledge domains because they have

gained PCK [3]. Creativity plays a central role in

engineering problem solving, but engineers areprincipally educated to solve well-defined, conver-

gent, analytical problems. Design as a core activity

of engineering intersects with several other disci-

plines where learning outcomes can be showed in

different ways. The key to enhancing engineering

design might be divergent thinking [2]; i.e., the

ability to generatemany different ideas anddifferent

types of ideas. Design can include the analysisprocess, which requires divergent thinking, and

synthesis, which requires divergent thinking. Diver-

gent thinking can be promoted through various


techniques and mind tools used in an interdisciplin-

ary manner, such as brainstorming, heuristics, the

SCAMPER technique, the TRIZ method, the six-

hats method, and reverse engineering techniques,

and the results of the present study thus support the

findings of previous studies [3, 14].Therewas correlation between students’ attitudes

and beliefs towards critical thinking and students’

creative design ability. Students who better under-

stand misconceptions and better appreciate the

importance of critical thinking scored higher on

the Fluency subscale. Furthermore, students who

were aware of the importance of critical thinking

scored higher on Flexibility. Surprisingly, studentswho were more confident in their critical thinking

scored lower onOriginality. Studentswho perceived

critical thinking higher perhaps placed more atten-

tion on the design process itself, with all limitations

and constraints, leading to a rationality of design as

argued by [8, 13]. Students who valued the impor-

tance of critical thinking and had a better under-

standing of conceptual misconceptions had betterresults on the Usefulness subscale. Critical thinking

and creativity are inextricably linked and together

allow effective learning and skill acquisition [32].

6. Conclusions

The present study contributes to the research field

by revealing an importance of the interplay between

critical thinking and design thinking in an inter-

disciplinary perspective. The present work will ben-efit educators and engineering curriculum designers

through the optimisation of technology and engi-

neering education from basic to higher education.

Educators should be aware of their students’

perceptions of and critical thinking experiences

which vary across the study disciplines due to

different methods and strategies of teaching critical

thinking. Students who have pedagogical contentknowledge perceived and experienced critical think-

ing as very useful higher order thinking skill to cope

with real-life problems, while engineering students

still rely on algorithmic thinking. Students’ under-

standing of misconceptions is rather interrelated

with the method they have been taught the content

knowledge.

Students in different academic disciplines prac-tised and perceived design thinking in different

ways. Thus, they have diverse design thinking abil-

ity to empathise, to create, to visualise, to collabo-

rate, and to make adaptable solutions. Students

with a pedagogical content knowledge seem to

easier make a transfer of ideas across different

contexts, while engineering students rather design

several embodiments and prototyping and testingthe new product in order to optimise their solutions.

Mechanical engineering students outperformed

their counterparts especially in user-centric empa-

thy, followed by problem definition or opportunity

determination.

In our study, all three subscales of students’

critical thinking contribute to their creative design

ability. Students who perceived higher values ofcritical thinking scored higher on the fluency and

flexibility of ideas, and the usefulness of their

designed embodiments is higher. Furthermore, stu-

dents’ understanding of misconceptions was found

as a strong predictor of the usefulness of their

designs and of the fluency of their design ideas. On

the contrary, students’ trust in critical thinking was

foundasnegative predictor of the originality of theirdesigns.

To provide deeper insights and making stronger

claims in our work, we need to include additional

disciplines in our analysis. In future work, we plan

to survey a larger sample of students, including

those in fine arts and architecture, and conduct an

interdisciplinary quasi-experiment of design think-

ing activity.

Acknowledgments –We thank Glenn Pennycook, MSc, fromEdanz Group (www.edanzediting.com/ac) for editing a draft ofthis manuscript.

References

1. M. A. Runco, Creativity, Annual Review of Psychology, 55, pp. 657–687, 2004.

2. D. H. Cropley, Creativity in Engineering, CA: Academic Press, San Diego, 2015.

3. S. Avsec and V. Ferk Savec, Creativity and critical thinking in engineering design: the role of interdisciplinary augmentation, Global

Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), pp. 30–36, 2019.

4. E. J.H. Spelt,H. J. A. Biemans,H. Tobi, P.A. Luning andM.Mulder, Teaching andLearning in InterdisciplinaryHigherEducation:

A Systematic Review, Educational Psychology Review, 21(4), pp. 365–378, 2009.

5. A. Fidalgo-Blanco,M. L. Sein-Echaluce and F. J. Garcia-Penalvo, Enhancing theMain Characteristics of ActiveMethodologies: A

Case with Micro Flip Teaching and Teamwork, International Journal of Engineering Education, 35(1), pp. 397–408, 2019.

6. K. Uziak, V. P. Kommula andK. Becker, Students’ attitude Towards Problem-Based Learning: A Case Study, International Journal

of Engineering Education, 35(3), pp. 733–743, 2019.

7. H. S. Jones, D. B. Campbell and I. Villanueva, An Investigation of Self-Efficacy and Topic Emotions in Entry-Level Engineering

Design Learning Activities, International Journal of Engineering Education, 35(1), pp. 15–24, 2019.

8. U. Zoller, The development of students’HOCS–The key to progress in STEMeducation,Bulletin of Science, Technology andSociety,

16(5–6), pp. 268–272, 1996.


9. R. Razzouk and V. Shute, What is Design Thinking and Why is it Important, Review of Educational Research, 82(3), pp. 330–348,

2012.

10. C. P. Dwyer, M. J. Hogan and I. Stewart, An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century, Thinking Skills and

Creativity, 12, pp. 43–52, 2014.

11. S. Cargas, S.Williams andM.Rosenberg, An approach to teaching critical thinking across disciplines using performance tasks with a

common rubric, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, pp. 24–37, 2017.

12. U. Zoller and G. Tsaparlis, Higher-order cognitive skills and lower-order cognitive skills: The case of chemistry, Research in Science

Education, 27(1), pp. 117–130, 1997

13. C. Wrigley and K. Straker, Design Thinking pedagogy: The Educational Design Ladder, Innovations in Education and Teaching

International, 54(4), pp. 374–385, 2017.

14. D. Henriksen, C. Richardson and R. Mehta, Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice, Thinking

Skills and Creativity, 26, pp. 140–153, 2017.

15. D. Cropley and A. Cropley, Recognizing and fostering creativity in technological design education, International Journal of

Technology and Design Education, 20(1), pp. 345–358, 2010.

16. C. L. Dym, A. M. Agogino, O. Eris, D. D. Frey and L. J. Leifer, Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning, Journal of

Engineering Education, 94(1), pp. 103–120, 2005.

17. M. M. Pastor, F. Roure, M. Ferrer, X. Ayneto, M. Casafont, J. M. Pons and J. Bonada, Learning in Engineering through Design,

Construction, Analysis and Experimentation, International Journal of Engineering Education, 35(1), pp. 372–384, 2019.

18. E.Kurilovas andV.Dagiene,ComputationalThinkingSkills andAdaptationQualityofVirtualLearningEnvironments forLearning

Informatics, International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(4), pp. 1596–1603, 2016.

19. S. Avargil, Learning Chemistry: Self-Efficacy, Chemical understanding, and Graphing Skills, Journal of Science Education and

Technology, 28(4), pp. 286–298, 2019.

20. K.-K. Yang, L. Lee, Z.-R. Hong and H.-S. Lin, Investigation of effective strategies for developing creative science thinking,

International Journal of Science Education, 38(13), pp. 2133–2151, 2016.

21. D.Ambrose,Large-Scale InterdisciplinaryDesignThinking forDealingwithTwenty-firstCenturyProblemsandOpportunities, inF.

Darbellay, Z. Moody and T. Lubart (eds), Creativity, Design Thinking and Interdisciplinarity. Creativity in the Twenty First Century,

pp. 35–52, Springer, Singapore, 2017.

22. P.Mishra andR.Mehta,Whatwe educators getwrongabout 21st-Century learning:Results of a survey, Journal ofDigitalLearning in

Teacher Education, 33(1), pp. 6–19, 2017.

23. P. Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, M. Viilo and K. Hakkarainen, Learning by collaborative designing: Technology-enhanced knowledge

practices, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(2), pp. 109–136, 2010.

24. C. Charyton, R. J. Jagacinski, J. A.Merrill, W. Clifton and S. DeDios, Assessing Creativity Specific to Engineering with the Revised

Creative Engineering Design Assessment, Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), pp. 778–799, 2011.

25. B. Esjeholm, Design knowledge interplayed with student creativity in D&T projects, International Journal of Technology and Design

Education, 25(2), pp. 227–243, 2015.

26. S.Atkinson,Does theneed for high levels of performance curtail the development of creativity in designand technologyprojectwork?,

International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(3), pp. 255–281, 2000.

27. E. J. N. Stupple, F. A.Maratos, J. Elander, T. E. Hunt, K. Y. F. Cheung andA.V. Aubeeluck, Development of the Critical Thinking

Toolkit (CriTT): A measure of student attitudes and beliefs about critical thinking, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, pp. 91–100,

2017.

28. D. F. Halpern, Thought and Knowledge, Psychology Press, New York, 2014.

29. G.Mosely, N.Wright and C.Wrigley, Facilitating design thinking: A comparison of design expertise, Thinking Skills and Creativity,

27, pp. 177–189, 2018.

30. M. Danaher, K. Schoep and A. Ater Kranov, Teaching and Measuring the Professional Skills of Information Technology Students

Using a Learning Oriented Assessment Task, International Journal of Engineering Education, 35(3), pp. 795–805, 2019.

31. J. Baer and J. C. Kaufman, Gender Differences in Creativity, Journal of Creative Behaviour, 42(2), pp. 75–105, 2008.

32. S. Spuzic, R. Narayanan, K. Abhary, H. K. Adriensen, S. Pignata and F. Uzunovic, The synergy of creativity and critical thinking in

engineering design: The role of interdisciplinary augmentation and the fine arts, Technology and Society, 45, pp. 1–7, 2016.

Veronika Suligoj graduated from mathematics and technology education. She obtained a master degree also from

mathematics and technology education, all at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Since 2015 she works as a teaching

assistant for technology education at the Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana. Currently she works a PhD thesis

in the field of design thinking for technology and engineering education. She is an active researcher in technology and

engineering education, learning and teaching methods, and educational technology.

Roman Zavbi is a Full Professor at the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Slovenia. His main

research interests are conceptual design (e.g., prescriptive design models, synthesis of elementary product concepts using

chaining of natural laws with complementary basic schemata, allocation of elementary function carriers and transforma-

tions from conceptual to embodiment design), impact of conceptual design tools on performance of engineering designers

and virtual product development teams. He is responsible for preparation and improvement of under- and post-graduate

courses of the Faculty dealing with product development.

Stanislav Avsec received a BSc degree in mechanical engineering, an MSc degree in economics and a PhD degree in

technology education, all from the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. He works as an associate professor of teaching and

learning strategies in technology and engineering education in the Faculty of Education at theUniversity of Ljubljana. He

is theHead ofDepartment of Physics and Technology Education at the Faculty of Education.He is an active researcher in


technology and engineering education, educational technology, creativity and inventiveness, and in environmental science

andmanagement.He is amember of editorial advisory boards and a reviewer for several journals in the area of technology

and engineering education, teaching, learning and individual differences, educational technology, environmental manage-

ment and engineering.


Documents

Interdisciplinary Critical and Design Thinking*